2012 Elections

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:24 am

"I wish my moderate Republican friends would simply be honest. They all say they’re voting for Romney because of his economic policies (tenuous and ill-formed as they are), and that they disagree with him on gay rights. Fine. Then look me in the eye, speak with a level clear voice, and say, ‘My taxes and take-home pay mean more than your fundamental civil rights, the sanctity of your marriage, your right to visit an ailing spouse in the hospital, your dignity as a citizen of this country, your healthcare, your right to inherit, the mental welfare and emotional well-being of your youth, and your very personhood.’ It’s like voting for George Wallace during the Civil Rights movements, and apologizing for his racism. You’re still complicit. You’re still perpetuating anti-gay legislation and cultural homophobia. You don’t get to walk away clean, because you say you ‘disagree’ with your candidate on these issues."

- Pulitzer and Tony winning playwright Doug Wright

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:30 am

silverjon wrote:"I wish my moderate Republican friends would simply be honest. They all say they’re voting for Romney because of his economic policies (tenuous and ill-formed as they are), and that they disagree with him on gay rights. Fine. Then look me in the eye, speak with a level clear voice, and say, ‘My taxes and take-home pay mean more than your fundamental civil rights, the sanctity of your marriage, your right to visit an ailing spouse in the hospital, your dignity as a citizen of this country, your healthcare, your right to inherit, the mental welfare and emotional well-being of your youth, and your very personhood.’ It’s like voting for George Wallace during the Civil Rights movements, and apologizing for his racism. You’re still complicit. You’re still perpetuating anti-gay legislation and cultural homophobia. You don’t get to walk away clean, because you say you ‘disagree’ with your candidate on these issues."

- Pulitzer and Tony winning playwright Doug Wright

That's just ridiculous. I've seen it on Facebook a few times and it makes me roll my eyes every time. It is boiling it down to a single issue. Never mind that just last election Obama had the same position before flip flopping (sorry evolving). You can't agree with a candidate on everything and to assume your issue is the most important issue for everyone else is pretty unreasonable.

Sent using tapatalk

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:35 am

I don't think it's ridiculous to say that if [the royal] you give economic concerns more weight in your decision-making than human rights, that you accept the negatives of that position as well as the positives.

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:40 am

The closer the polling day, the more absurd the proclamations.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:43 am

So what happens if Sandy takes out the power on the East Coast and there are places that don't get it back until after the election. How will people vote? Do the polls remain open for days afterwards? What is the process? Is it up to each state/city?

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:50 am

stessier wrote:So what happens if Sandy takes out the power on the East Coast and there are places that don't get it back until after the election. How will people vote? Do the polls remain open for days afterwards? What is the process? Is it up to each state/city?

Show of hands.

Combustible Lemur · Post by **Combustible Lemur** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:54 pm

Chrisoc13 wrote:
silverjon wrote:"I wish my moderate Republican friends would simply be honest. They all say they’re voting for Romney because of his economic policies (tenuous and ill-formed as they are), and that they disagree with him on gay rights. Fine. Then look me in the eye, speak with a level clear voice, and say, ‘My taxes and take-home pay mean more than your fundamental civil rights, the sanctity of your marriage, your right to visit an ailing spouse in the hospital, your dignity as a citizen of this country, your healthcare, your right to inherit, the mental welfare and emotional well-being of your youth, and your very personhood.’ It’s like voting for George Wallace during the Civil Rights movements, and apologizing for his racism. You’re still complicit. You’re still perpetuating anti-gay legislation and cultural homophobia. You don’t get to walk away clean, because you say you ‘disagree’ with your candidate on these issues."

- Pulitzer and Tony winning playwright Doug Wright
That's just ridiculous. I've seen it on Facebook a few times and it makes me roll my eyes every time. It is boiling it down to a single issue. Never mind that just last election Obama had the same position before flip flopping (sorry evolving). You can't agree with a candidate on everything and to assume your issue is the most important issue for everyone else is pretty unreasonable.

Sent using tapatalk

It's harsh and hyperbolic, but not ridiculous. If it was just gay marriage, it might be a single issue. But for me it's a question of whether the president has more influence on just the economy or a whole range of philosophical pursuits. Gay marriage, women's healthcare, religious freedoms, etc. To say that the social issues don't matter because they are individual issues when not seen as a philosophical spectrum is either disingenuous or naive. Sure Obama flipflopped because that's what he needed to do to get elected. Just as Romney courted the left in Mass. and the tea party in the primaries. The problem is that Romney will have the power to potentially end abortion to hold back gay rights, to damage planned parent hood, his party is anti science and dismissing of global warming. I am actually not too fearful of a Romney economy, but the hell if I am going to put in office a party that is willfully blocking civil rights, and believes that the federal government has any business in my wife's vagina. I'm also pretty pissdd at obamas handling of the drug war, and other psuedo social issues. But D 's are definately the lesser of two social and civil evils from my point of view.

And it is the current Republican platform to say more money faster IS more important than civil rights or reproductive rights. It's disingenuous to pretend like it isn't half of what this election is going to affect.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:59 pm

Chrisoc13 wrote:
silverjon wrote:"I wish my moderate Republican friends would simply be honest. They all say they’re voting for Romney because of his economic policies (tenuous and ill-formed as they are), and that they disagree with him on gay rights. Fine. Then look me in the eye, speak with a level clear voice, and say, ‘My taxes and take-home pay mean more than your fundamental civil rights, the sanctity of your marriage, your right to visit an ailing spouse in the hospital, your dignity as a citizen of this country, your healthcare, your right to inherit, the mental welfare and emotional well-being of your youth, and your very personhood.’ It’s like voting for George Wallace during the Civil Rights movements, and apologizing for his racism. You’re still complicit. You’re still perpetuating anti-gay legislation and cultural homophobia. You don’t get to walk away clean, because you say you ‘disagree’ with your candidate on these issues."

- Pulitzer and Tony winning playwright Doug Wright
That's just ridiculous. I've seen it on Facebook a few times and it makes me roll my eyes every time. It is boiling it down to a single issue. Never mind that just last election Obama had the same position before flip flopping (sorry evolving).

I don't think much of quote above, but it is completely and utterly absurd to call Romney '12 equivalent to Obama '08 on gay rights.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelang ... 22314.html" target="_blank
http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... k-obama-/1" target="_blank
http://www.thenation.com/blog/170820/ro ... gay-rights#" target="_blank

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:19 pm

silverjon wrote:I don't think it's ridiculous to say that if [the royal] you give economic concerns more weight in your decision-making than human rights, that you accept the negatives of that position as well as the positives.

It's not but that's the nature of our two party system and that we buy into it hook line and sinker, like we're rooting for and supporting sports teams. It's puppies. Even worse, republicans should be the champions of getting government out of my life. That the religious right and corporate welfare sponsors hold the party hostage is a testament to the success of those who are more bold about believing they have the right to fruits of my labor.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:23 pm

Combustible Lemur wrote:The problem is that Romney will have the power to potentially end abortion to hold back gay rights, to damage planned parent hood, his party is anti science and dismissing of global warming.

Seriously?

Reagan couldn't. Bush I couldn't. Bush II couldn't. But somehow Romney is going to be able to do those things?

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:24 pm

Combustible Lemur wrote:
Chrisoc13 wrote:
silverjon wrote:"I wish my moderate Republican friends would simply be honest. They all say they’re voting for Romney because of his economic policies (tenuous and ill-formed as they are), and that they disagree with him on gay rights. Fine. Then look me in the eye, speak with a level clear voice, and say, ‘My taxes and take-home pay mean more than your fundamental civil rights, the sanctity of your marriage, your right to visit an ailing spouse in the hospital, your dignity as a citizen of this country, your healthcare, your right to inherit, the mental welfare and emotional well-being of your youth, and your very personhood.’ It’s like voting for George Wallace during the Civil Rights movements, and apologizing for his racism. You’re still complicit. You’re still perpetuating anti-gay legislation and cultural homophobia. You don’t get to walk away clean, because you say you ‘disagree’ with your candidate on these issues."

- Pulitzer and Tony winning playwright Doug Wright
That's just ridiculous. I've seen it on Facebook a few times and it makes me roll my eyes every time. It is boiling it down to a single issue. Never mind that just last election Obama had the same position before flip flopping (sorry evolving). You can't agree with a candidate on everything and to assume your issue is the most important issue for everyone else is pretty unreasonable.

Sent using tapatalk
It's harsh and hyperbolic, but not ridiculous. If it was just gay marriage, it might be a single issue. But for me it's a question of whether the president has more influence on just the economy or a whole range of philosophical pursuits. Gay marriage, women's healthcare, religious freedoms, etc. To say that the social issues don't matter because they are individual issues when not seen as a philosophical spectrum is either disingenuous or naive. Sure Obama flipflopped because that's what he needed to do to get elected. Just as Romney courted the left in Mass. and the tea party in the primaries. The problem is that Romney will have the power to potentially end abortion to hold back gay rights, to damage planned parent hood, his party is anti science and dismissing of global warming. I am actually not too fearful of a Romney economy, but the hell if I am going to put in office a party that is willfully blocking civil rights, and believes that the federal government has any business in my wife's vagina. I'm also pretty pissdd at obamas handling of the drug war, and other psuedo social issues. But D 's are definately the lesser of two social and civil evils from my point of view.

And it is the current Republican platform to say more money faster IS more important than civil rights or reproductive rights. It's disingenuous to pretend like it isn't half of what this election is going to affect.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Sure but then it isn't a single issue right? And isn't that an indication of what you care about and not what I care about? Social issues mean almost nothing to me. I don't care about them, I don't want the federal government involved in them at all for the most part. So for me it is about the economy, and in a two party system I have to choose the candidate that fits the mold best for the issues I care about. It's absurd to assume that this man's most important issue should be my most important issue and that there is no justification for voting for someone he doesn't agree with. That people are repeating this nonsense all over the place online is a real head-scratcher for me.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:28 pm

I didn't think he was saying that it should be your most important issue. I thought he was just saying that you should be honest that you are willing to trade all of those issues of his for the only issue you care about, and that you should stop pretending that you support those issues while you are voting to actively harm them. Not you personally, of course.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:28 pm

Chrisoc13 wrote:I don't want the federal government involved in them at all for the most part.

Not to pick on you, but then how do you process the comments made by Romney where he's specifically indicated he will fight for DOMA and push to amend the federal Constitution to define marriage as "one man / one woman." That's pretty much the exact opposite of the federal government not getting involved, no?

It's one thing to come out and say you personally agree or disagree with something. It's a completely different ballpark when you start talking about pushing amendments to our Constitution.

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:29 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
Combustible Lemur wrote:The problem is that Romney will have the power to potentially end abortion to hold back gay rights, to damage planned parent hood, his party is anti science and dismissing of global warming.
Seriously?

Reagan couldn't. Bush I couldn't. Bush II couldn't. But somehow Romney is going to be able to do those things?

Exactly. Which is why social issues mean so little to me. Roe V Wade isn't going to be overturned. Gay marriage is going to continue to be legalized from state to state slowly but surely. With this in mind I care very little about issues of this nature.

I understand that for some people it affects their life a whole lot more than other issues so it is hard to see that other people have more pressing concerns. There are many other things that concern me far more and the things I care about are the things I vote for. It would be great if there was a candidate who I completely agreed with, but there isn't and never will be (unless I run

) so I must do what we all must do: I look at the issues I care about and who lines up with them and vote accordingly.

The problem with this quote is it is making the assumption that gay rights needs to be just as important to everyone else as it is to him. While it may be on my list, it isn't near the top of things I am concerned about.

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:33 pm

Smoove_B wrote:
Chrisoc13 wrote:I don't want the federal government involved in them at all for the most part.
Not to pick on you, but then how do you process the comments made by Romney where he's specifically indicated he will fight for DOMA and push to amend the federal Constitution to define marriage as "one man / one woman." That's pretty much the exact opposite of the federal government not getting involved, no?

It's one thing to come out and say you personally agree or disagree with something. It's a completely different ballpark when you start talking about pushing amendments to our Constitution.

I don't want the federal government involved, that doesn't mean there is a major party which lines up with my views on the matter. I don't agree with a lot of things Romney wants to do but the things that matter most to me I agree with him more than President Obama.

Assuming I have to process or excuse amending the Constitution is assuming when I vote for a candidate I agree with them on every position. That simply is not the case.

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:36 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:I didn't think he was saying that it should be your most important issue. I thought he was just saying that you should be honest that you are willing to trade all of those issues of his for the only issue you care about, and that you should stop pretending that you support those issues while you are voting to actively harm them. Not you personally, of course.

That is exactly my problem with it. There is no willingness to see the other side, that there are people who will vote for Romney that are for gay rights, but perhaps they think right now there are other more pressing issues the country is facing. The quote makes issues seem black and white, when they are far from.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:43 pm

I'm for gay rights, it just happens that a consequence of my voting is to suppress gay rights. Sorry about that?

Fretmute · Post by **Fretmute** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:45 pm

Chrisoc13 wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote:I didn't think he was saying that it should be your most important issue. I thought he was just saying that you should be honest that you are willing to trade all of those issues of his for the only issue you care about, and that you should stop pretending that you support those issues while you are voting to actively harm them. Not you personally, of course.
That is exactly my problem with it. There is no willingness to see the other side, that there are people who will vote for Romney that are for gay rights, but perhaps they think right now there are other more pressing issues the country is facing. The quote makes issues seem black and white, when they are far from.

. . . so you're saying that you agree entirely with Doug Wright's point. You do think that fixing the economy is worth supporting those that would marginalize certain folks' civil liberties.

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:47 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:I'm for gay rights, it just happens that a consequence of my voting is to suppress gay rights. Sorry about that?

To which he could respond: "I'm for economic recovery, it just happens that a consequence of my voting is to suppress the economy. Sorry about that?" It goes two ways. Most Americans are moderate. We agree with part of the platform from each party. Some people may square with a party all the way, but I am willing to venture a guess that a vast majority of us find what matters most to us and vote for that party. I have nothing to apologize for since gay rights (and social issues in general) are not something I vote for. There usually are matters that have a far greater impact on me personally that I care about, and in the end I am selfish (as most of us are) and I vote for what is best for me and not what is best for some guy on the internet posting a rather absurd statement.

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:50 pm

Fretmute wrote:
Chrisoc13 wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote:I didn't think he was saying that it should be your most important issue. I thought he was just saying that you should be honest that you are willing to trade all of those issues of his for the only issue you care about, and that you should stop pretending that you support those issues while you are voting to actively harm them. Not you personally, of course.
That is exactly my problem with it. There is no willingness to see the other side, that there are people who will vote for Romney that are for gay rights, but perhaps they think right now there are other more pressing issues the country is facing. The quote makes issues seem black and white, when they are far from.
. . . so you're saying that you agree entirely with Doug Wright's point. You do think that fixing the economy is worth supporting those that would marginalize certain folks' civil liberties.

It's a pretty dramatic proclamation. I don't agree with him because I don't believe I am voting to suppress gay rights. I actually don't think either president will have much impact on social issues in the US regardless of what rhetoric they spew that is convenient to get them elected. To boil it down to a single issue that matters most to him... eh I'm not a fan of that. Inflammatory proclamations don't lead to open dialogue and it only further entrenches people in their positions.

Edit: but sure I do think my take home pay and my career mean more to me than his ability to marry. His ability to marry means more to him than my ability to provide for a family. People on both sides could be equally dramatic, but it doesn't encourage civil dialogue or understanding. I'm not a fan of that type of crap.

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:51 pm

Chrisoc13 wrote:I have nothing to apologize for since gay rights (and social issues in general) are not something I vote for. There usually are matters that have a far greater impact on me personally that I care about, and in the end I am selfish (as most of us are) and I vote for what is best for me and not what is best for some guy

There you go. Own it. That's how I interpreted what Mr. Wright was asking for.

cheeba · Post by **cheeba** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:51 pm

I take it this Pulitzer and Tony Award winner didn't vote for Obama last time because Obama was against gay marriage back then, right?

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:51 pm

priorities

Fretmute · Post by **Fretmute** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:52 pm

Chrisoc13 wrote:It's a pretty dramatic proclamation. I don't agree with him because I don't believe I am voting to suppress gay rights.

If you're voting Republican, you are. It's right there in the platform.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:53 pm

I wasn't aware that suppressing the economy was one of Obama's campaign promises.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:53 pm

Fretmute wrote: . . . so you're saying that you agree entirely with Doug Wright's point. You do think that fixing the economy is worth supporting those that would marginalize certain folks' civil liberties.

Well voting for Obama means voting for a guy that assassinates US citizens. So I guess 97% of the country is marginalizing civil rights.

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:54 pm

silverjon wrote:
Chrisoc13 wrote:I have nothing to apologize for since gay rights (and social issues in general) are not something I vote for. There usually are matters that have a far greater impact on me personally that I care about, and in the end I am selfish (as most of us are) and I vote for what is best for me and not what is best for some guy
There you go. Own it. That's how I interpreted what Mr. Wright was asking for.

Ha ok, I would never ask someone on the other side to "own it" when they disagree with me. That's my biggest problem with his comment. It's very hypocritical.

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:56 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:I wasn't aware that suppressing the economy was one of Obama's campaign promises.

That's how I read his policies, I believe they will suppress the economy, not to mention he actually has a record to look at. I could be wrong (and if he wins I hope I am), but I don't want to take the chance with that so I won't vote for him. My point still stands.

cheeba · Post by **cheeba** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:57 pm

Fretmute wrote:
Chrisoc13 wrote:It's a pretty dramatic proclamation. I don't agree with him because I don't believe I am voting to suppress gay rights.
If you're voting Republican, you are. It's right there in the platform.

Wow. This forum is usually filled with relativists. Now y'all have become absolutists. Weird. Somehow a vote for a republican means you support every single issue in the republican platform?

So those of you who voted for and are voting for Obama all support the war on drugs, right?

This is dumb.

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:58 pm

Fretmute wrote:
Chrisoc13 wrote:It's a pretty dramatic proclamation. I don't agree with him because I don't believe I am voting to suppress gay rights.
If you're voting Republican, you are. It's right there in the platform.

Go ahead and read what I have written and get back to me. I've been pretty clear I don't agree with everything in either parties platform. I am not tied to either party and certainly don't agree with everything either of them say. We have a two party system, this is the nature of the beast.

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:00 pm

cheeba wrote:
Fretmute wrote:
Chrisoc13 wrote:It's a pretty dramatic proclamation. I don't agree with him because I don't believe I am voting to suppress gay rights.
If you're voting Republican, you are. It's right there in the platform.
Wow. This forum is usually filled with relativists. Now y'all have become absolutists. Weird. Somehow a vote for a republican means you support every single issue in the republican platform?

So those of you who voted for and are voting for Obama all support the war on drugs, right?

This is dumb.

It's the classic being open minded until it means being open minded about something you don't agree with.

The last few posts here have really made me wonder if I am the only one who finds no identity in either party. Apparently everyone else agrees straight down the platform of a party.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:01 pm

Chrisoc13 wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote:I wasn't aware that suppressing the economy was one of Obama's campaign promises.
That's how I read his policies, I believe they will suppress the economy, not to mention he actually has a record to look at. I could be wrong (and if he wins I hope I am), but I don't want to take the chance with that so I won't vote for him. My point still stands.

Two people are offering two different visions on how to help the economy. Neither candidate is proposing to actively harm the economy.

Between those same two people, one of them is actively advocating restrictions on gay rights. Your analogy fails. Also, I have no doubt that the original author of the quote would happily own up to enabling one version of helping the economy as a consequence of his focus on equal rights.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:01 pm

I would love to know how many people vote for a candidate based on which one they think will benefit them the most, personally, vs. which one they think would benefit the country most. And the breakdown between party lines. Of course you would never see that poll, because it would be so unreliable as to be silly.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:03 pm

Voting Republican doesn't mean you agree with everything they stand for. It just means that you are responsible for enabling everything they do after you help put them in power. Moreso when they've come right out and told you what they want to do.

Fretmute · Post by **Fretmute** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:04 pm

cheeba wrote:So those of you who voted for and are voting for Obama all support the war on drugs, right?

We will be, whether we want to or not. Them's the breaks.

We're all welcome to subscribe to whatever beliefs we want. But we all have to be honest and realize that we may be actively supporting some things with which we disagree, be it marriage/drugs/fiscal policy, when we vote certain ways.

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:06 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
Chrisoc13 wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote:I wasn't aware that suppressing the economy was one of Obama's campaign promises.
That's how I read his policies, I believe they will suppress the economy, not to mention he actually has a record to look at. I could be wrong (and if he wins I hope I am), but I don't want to take the chance with that so I won't vote for him. My point still stands.
Two people are offering two different visions on how to help the economy. Neither candidate is proposing to actively harm the economy.

Between those same two people, one of them is actively advocating restrictions on gay rights. Your analogy fails. Also, I have no doubt that the original author of the quote would happily own up to enabling one version of helping the economy as a consequence of his focus on equal rights.

I don't see it that way. I cannot "fail" at my own opinion. What he says will help the economy I think will actively harm the economy. If he wins I hope I am wrong.

And in terms of my career, the health care legislation will certainly impact my career in a negative way, and thus my personal economy a great deal. I am very opposed to it. There is far too much in there I don't care for. That is a direct attack on my career and my livelihood, yet when someone is for President Obama I don't take it as a personal attack. The same cannot be said here.

RM9 sometimes I think you like arguing for the sake of arguing

. It is my opinion, no matter how may times you reply you cannot prove false my opinion that President Obama's positions will actively harm the economy. It isn't possible.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:07 pm

Chrisoc13 wrote: The last few posts here have really made me wonder if I am the only one who finds no identity in either party. Apparently everyone else agrees straight down the platform of a party.

Nope...I have a laundry list of items which I strongly disagree with Obama.

I once thought Libertarians represented my personal views best. I agree with tons of their positions on specific topics, but I strongly disagree with their umbrella Ron Swanson pessimism of government being inherently bad.

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:09 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:Voting Republican doesn't mean you agree with everything they stand for. It just means that you are responsible for enabling everything they do after you help put them in power. Moreso when they've come right out and told you what they want to do.

What a stupid argument this has become. Nobody agrees with everything in either parties platforms. If I vote for someone I am not responsible for their choices by any means. I would have to vote for myself only if that was the standard.

Edit to add: When I voted for Max Baucas as senator for Montana I did not agree with everything he stood for. In fact when the healthcare reform was passed I called him at least 15 times to let him know I was opposed to the legislation. Just because he voted for it doesn't mean I am responsible for his choice. I voted for him, but was clear I did not agree with that legislation. We have lots of ways to let our elected officials know what we want. Assuming once we vote our voice is lost is not factual. If Romney is elected and if he starts pushing hard for a defense of marriage amendment you better believe I will be writing a letter or two, calling my senators etc. I have a voice beyond the election. To assume it is over simply because we have voted and now we have no voice is far too passive of a way to look at politics.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:11 pm

As long as the republican party tries to keep the abortion 'debate' alive, I will have a problem putting them in a position to effect that 'debate'. When Romney described Woe vs Wade as the darkest moment in Supreme Court history - I knew I would never cast a vote for him.

I don't vote 'selflessly', but I don't really ever seem to be voting 'to better myself' *(ie. Lower my taxes) . I generally vote for the people that are trying to protect woman's health rights (i.e. the abortion 'debate') and then I also see the republican party being on the absolutely wrong side of history on gay rights, as well, and so I have no interest in them for that reason too.

Until the republican party gets on the right side of history on these two 'debates', they are empty non-starter choices, to me.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:15 pm

Chrisoc13 wrote:I do think my take home pay and my career mean more to me than his ability to marry. His ability to marry means more to him than my ability to provide for a family. People on both sides could be equally dramatic, but it doesn't encourage civil dialogue or understanding. I'm not a fan of that type of crap.

That's the emotional baggage about Facebook circulation that gets me wrong and makes me want to say "Screw you, Mr Wright, whomever you are."

noxiousdog wrote:
Fretmute wrote: . . . so you're saying that you agree entirely with Doug Wright's point. You do think that fixing the economy is worth supporting those that would marginalize certain folks' civil liberties.
Well voting for Obama means voting for a guy that assassinates US citizens. So I guess 97% of the country is marginalizing civil rights.

And signed into law the legal authority to hold them in military prisons indefinitely without charging them.

And I'm still not voting for Romney for keep Obama out of office. This false dichotomy has been going on for far too long and they can both suck it.

Fretmute wrote:But we all have to be honest and realize that we may be actively supporting some things with which we disagree, be it marriage/drugs/fiscal policy, when we vote certain ways.

Absolutely. I just don't have to accept "my" voting be reduced to reducing my taxes versus your civil liberties.